The sons of God and the Nephilim · Seek

Read with these questions

When you picture the sons of God, are you picturing angels? Where does that picture come from?^{1 4}

Which details of the Nephilim come from Genesis, and which from 1 Enoch's WatchersWatchersAngels in ancient Jewish and Christian texts who descended, married human women and fathered giants. McKenna Boling says they almost certainly connect to the “sons of God” in Genesis 6.From: Genesis 6:2; Boling; BolingAll terms → story?^{2 7 8}

Read the passage

Text

Genesis 6:1–4

^6:1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, ²the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose. ³So the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Read it in the chapter reader →Compare translations and the original words →

The story, step by step

Text

A faithful retelling, step by step. Nothing added, nothing smoothed over.

Genesis 6:1–2
As humanity grows and daughters are born, the 'sons of God', bene ha'elohimElohimA grammatically plural Hebrew word used for God, gods or divine beings. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary interprets its plural form when referring to God as expressing grandeur rather than multiple identities.From: PowellAll terms → in Hebrew, see that the women are beautiful and take whichever they choose as wives. Who are these sons? Readers have understood them as angels or other heavenly beings, rulers or judges, or Seth's descendants.
Read it in context
^6:1Now when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, ²the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took as wives whomever they chose.
Genesis 6:3
The LORD says his spirit will not remain in humans forever because they are flesh; other translations say it will not contend with them. He sets their days at 120 years. Does the number limit human lifespans or mark the time left before the flood? Readers have understood it both ways.
Read it in context
³So the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.”
Genesis 6:4
Genesis places the Nephilim on earth at this time and afterward, when the sons of God father children with human women: the gibborim, 'mighty men' of old, men of renown. The verse does not explicitly say whether the Nephilim are these children. The Hebrew word Nephilim appears only here and in Numbers 13:33. Driver calls its meaning unknown; the KJV translates it as 'giants', Drummond explains it as 'the fallen ones', and Keil reports LutherMartin LutherA German religious reformer (1483–1546), according to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Henry Ganss’s Catholic Encyclopedia article reports that Luther translated the New Testament into German while at Wartburg.From: Lindsay; Lindsay; GanssAll terms →'s reading, 'tyrants'.
Read it in context
⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and afterward as well—when the sons of God had relations with the daughters of men. And they bore them children who became the mighty men of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:5–7
The LORD sees how great human wickedness has become and decides to wipe humankind from the earth. The text does not say the marriages caused this decision.
Read it in context
^6:5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. ⁶And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”

The world of the story

A heavenly assembly Scholarship

Job pictures the sons of God presenting themselves before the LORD and shouting for joy at the earth's founding, and Psalm 82 has God judging in the divine assembly. Heiser reports that in Ugaritic myth El, also called the Most High, fathered seventy sons, the 'sons of El'. At Deuteronomy 32:8 the BSB follows the Dead Sea ScrollsDead Sea ScrollsAncient manuscripts first discovered in 1947. The Israel Antiquities Authority dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the third century BCE to before 70 CE; they include copies of every Hebrew Bible book except Esther, alongside other Jewish writings.From: Congress; Congress; Authority; Authority; Authority; AuthorityAll terms →' 'sons of God', where the SeptuagintSeptuagintAn ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, also including books Christians call Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books, according to Jannes Smith.From: Smith; SmithAll terms → has 'angels of God' and the Masoretic TextMasoretic TextThe accepted Hebrew biblical text from the second half of the first millennium CE onward, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority. Many Qumran biblical manuscripts closely resemble it, the Authority says, while some differ in language and spelling.From: Authority; Authority; Authority; AuthorityAll terms → 'sons of Israel'. These are comparisons for reading Genesis, not accounts of its marriages.^{9 sources}9 sources9. Job 1:6 10. Job 2:1 11. Job 38:7 12. Psalms 82:1 13. Psalms 82:6–7 14. Heiser 2001 15. Drummond 16. this site's data 17. Deuteronomy 32:8

The Watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees Tradition

The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36), which Goff dates to the third century BCE and which survives in AramaicAramaicA Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that parts of Ezra, Daniel and Jeremiah and a phrase in Genesis are written in Aramaic; Jesus probably spoke a Western Aramaic dialect.From: Daniel 2:4; Powell; Perrin; PowellAll terms → fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, has two hundred angels descend on Mount Hermon in Jared's days, desiring human women. They teach charms and root-cutting, and the women bear giants three thousand ells tall. God tells the Watchers that heavenly spirits were given no wives. In Jubilees 5 the angels of God take wives and are bound in the depths of the earth.^{8 sources}8 sources18. Goff 2021 19. 1 Enoch 6:2 20. 1 Enoch 6:6 21. 1 Enoch 7:1–2 22. 1 Enoch 7:4 23. 1 Enoch 15:6–7 24. Jubilees 5:1 25. Jubilees 5:6

Heroes of divine and human parentage Scholarship

Hesiod describes an earlier race of hero-men called demigods, some destroyed in war at Thebes and Troy. Goff compares the warriors of Genesis 6 with Achilles and Gilgamesh, heroes of mixed human and divine parentage. Skinner places the passage beside ancient notions of gigantic early humans and of gods marrying mortals, and Driver compares the Greek Titans. Melvin describes the Mesopotamian apkallu as semi-divine sages who taught humans the arts of civilization before the flood.^{6 sources}6 sources26. Evelyn-White 27. Goff 2021 28. Skinner 1910 6. Driver 1904 29. Driver 1904 30. Melvin 2010

Show 2 more background topics (How the readings shifted; Giants remembered in later Jewish books)

How the readings shifted Scholarship

Doedens finds that the angel reading appears to be the earliest known, and dates the earliest Sethite reading to Julius Africanus in the early third century, possibly from Syriac tradition. In his account the West dropped the angel reading once angels were seen as bodiless, the East called the Sethites sons of God for their chastity, the Reformers kept the Sethite view, and the angel reading revived in the nineteenth century. Heiser's claim that every commentator before Augustine read angels is contradicted by Africanus and by Shimon bar Yochai.^{5 sources}5 sources31. Doedens 2013 32. Doedens 2013 33. Heiser 34. Africanus 35. Bereshit Rabbah 26 (Sefaria English translation)

Giants remembered in later Jewish books Text

Sirach 16:7, Wisdom 14:6, Baruch 3:26-28 and 3 Maccabees 2:4 recall ancient giants, and all but Sirach say they perished, 3 Maccabees by a measureless flood. None of them names the sons of God. Augustine quotes the Baruch passage.^{4 sources}4 sources36. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:7 37. Wisdom of Solomon 14:6 38. Baruch 3:26–28 39. 3 Maccabees 2:4

Where it fits

Genesis 6:2 — The sons of God take wives, but who are they? Doedens groups the answers into four readings: angels, mighty ones such as rulers or judges, Seth's descendants, and other heavenly beings whose identity is left open.^{1 4}
Genesis 6:3 — The LORD announces 120 years: a limit on human lifespan or time to repent before the flood? Doedens argues for a lifespan limit; Targum Onkelos, in the Metsudah translation, reads it as time for repentance.^{40 4 41}
Genesis 6:4 — The verse mentions the Nephilim alongside the marriages and children without explicitly identifying them as the same people. Routledge thinks the Nephilim were probably the offspring; Keil places them before the marriages.^{4 sources}4 sources2. Genesis 6:4 42. Routledge 2015 43. Keil 1864 44. Keil 1864

Where else Scripture speaks of it

Text

Job 1:6 The sons of God present themselves before the LORD, with Satan among them. Skinner holds that everywhere in the Old Testament the expression means members of the divine order.
⁶One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.
Read in context →
Deuteronomy 32:8 The BSB follows the Dead Sea Scrolls' 'sons of God', noting the Septuagint's 'angels of God' and the Masoretic 'sons of Israel'; Heiser reports the Qumran fragments 4QDeut j and n.
⁸When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
Read in context →
Numbers 13:33 The spies' report, the only other place the word Nephilim occurs. Ibn EzraIbn EzraA Spanish Jewish scholar (born 1092–1093, died 1167), according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. Steven McKenzie names him among twelfth-century readers who suspected that several documents lay behind the Bible’s first books.From: Gottheil; Gottheil; McKenzieAll terms → reads descendants of the sons of God; Routledge reads exaggeration.
³³We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim! We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”
Read in context →

Show 8 more passages

Genesis 7:23 No one survives but Noah and his companions in the ark, which makes the later Nephilim a puzzle.
²³And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah and those with him in the ark remained.
Read in context →
Deuteronomy 3:11 Og alone remained of the Rephaim, with an iron bed nine cubits long; the TalmudTalmudA collection of rabbinic teachings and discussions framed as commentary on the Mishnah. Sara Ronis explains that the name usually means the Babylonian Talmud, produced from the third to seventh centuries CE.From: Ronis; RonisAll terms → later made him a flood survivor.
¹¹(For only Og king of Bashan had remained of the remnant of the Rephaim. His bed of iron, nine cubits long and four cubits wide, is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)
Read in context →
Jude 1:6–7 Angels who abandoned their proper dwelling are kept for judgment, and Sodom and Gomorrah sinned 'in like manner'. Doedens reads an allusion to Genesis 6; Keil denies that Jude speaks of marriages.
^1:6And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling—these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. ⁷In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.
Read in context →
2 Peter 2:4–5 2 Peter sets the angels who sinned, cast into Tartarus, beside the flood; the Greek verb tartaroo occurs only here in the New Testament.
^2:4For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them deep into hell, placing them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; ⁵if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight;
Read in context →
1 Peter 3:19–20 Christ preaches to the spirits in prison who disobeyed in Noah's day. Pierce reports three readings of who they are, one of them the angels of the Watchers tradition.
^3:19in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison ²⁰who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water.
Read in context →
Matthew 22:30 Jesus says the risen do not marry and are like the angels in heaven; Luke has 'like the angels' without 'in heaven'. Keil uses the saying to exclude angels here.
³⁰In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.
Read in context →
Genesis 5:32 Noah fathers his sons after he is 500 and is 600 at the flood, roughly a century if the decree follows that notice; the text does not date the decree.
³²After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Read in context →
Genesis 11:10–11 Shem's years total six hundred, and Abraham dies at 175; these lives are used against a 120-year lifespan limit.
^11:10This is the account of Shem. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad. ¹¹And after he had become the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
Read in context →

How the traditions read it

Tradition

How different traditions have read the story, in their own terms.

Jewish: Second Temple · Angels who took women

Josephus tells of seven generations of virtue in Seth's line, then decline, then many angels of God lying with women and fathering unjust sons whose deeds he compares to the Greek giants'. The Testament of Reuben has the Watchers change into the shape of men. PhiloPhilo of AlexandriaA Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (about 20 BCE–after 40 CE). The Jewish Encyclopedia describes his effort to harmonize Greek philosophy with Hebrew religion through allegorical interpretation of the Bible.From: Toy; ToyAll terms → reads the angels as what philosophers call demons, souls in the air, insisting this is no fable, and then allegorises the evil angels as men pursuing pleasure.^{5 sources}5 sources45. Whiston)46. (ed.) 1913 47. (ed.) 1913 48. Yonge 49. Yonge

Jewish: rabbinic · Sons of the great

Targum Onkelos, in the Metsudah translation, renders the sons of God 'the sons of the rulers'. In Genesis Rabbah, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai renders them 'children of judges' and curses anyone who calls them 'children of God'; the translator explains that a literal rendering seemed blasphemous. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan also has 'the sons of the great'.^{5 sources}5 sources50. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)51. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)35. Bereshit Rabbah 26 (Sefaria English translation)52. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis, tr. J. W. Etheridge (1862), Sefaria 53. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis, tr. J. W. Etheridge (1862), Sefaria

Jewish: rabbinic · Fallen angels kept alongside

Pseudo-Jonathan names Schamchazai and Uzziel, 'who fell from heaven', as on the earth in those days. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer tells of angels who fell from their holy place taking wives from Cain's line and fathering the giants. The Talmud (Niddah 61a) traces Og and Sihon to Shamhazai.^{4 sources}4 sources52. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis, tr. J. W. Etheridge (1862), Sefaria 53. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis, tr. J. W. Etheridge (1862), Sefaria 54. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 22, tr. Gerald Friedlander (Sefaria)55. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 61a (William Davidson translation, Sefaria)

Show 14 more interpretations (Jewish: medieval commentator, Jewish: modern, Early church: Greek…)

Jewish: medieval commentator · Rulers first, angels as an option

Rashi explains the sons of God first as sons of princes and rulers, noting that elohim can mean authority, and second as princely angels sent as messengers; on Numbers he derives the Anakim from fallen Shemchazai and Azael. Ibn Ezra reports judges' sons, holy men and Seth's children, and prefers men who knew the will of the Most High. NachmanidesNachmanidesA Spanish Talmudist, Bible commentator and physician (1194–about 1270), also called Moses ben Nahman or Ramban. The Jewish Encyclopedia calls his Pentateuch commentary his masterpiece.From: Jacobs; Jacobs; Jacobs; JacobsAll terms → suggests Adam's first descendants, yet says the fallen-angel account fits the wording best.^{4 sources}4 sources56. Rashi 57. Rashi 58. Ezra 59. (Ramban)

Jewish: modern · An upper class or embodied angels

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz gives two readings without choosing between them, an upper class grown apart from humanity or angels given human bodies as a test they failed. He suggests nefilim may mean they fell from greatness or were 'more wondrous'.^{60 61 62}

Early church: Greek · Justin's angels, Africanus's Sethites

Justin Martyr says the angels God set over humanity transgressed, were captivated by women and fathered children called demons. Julius Africanus, whose copies read 'the angels of heaven', holds that Seth's descendants are meant; if angels are meant, he says, they taught women magic and the motions of the stars.^{63 34}

Early church: Latin · Seth's descendants abandoning righteousness

Augustine cannot believe God's holy angels fell in this way and reads Seth's descendants who forsook righteousness. He leaves undecided whether spirits could have intercourse with women, rejects the Enoch stories as apocryphal, and argues that giants need no angelic fathers.⁶⁴

Orthodox · Two Orthodox writers disagree

Fr Lawrence Farley, writing for the Orthodox Church in America, calls angels marrying women the obvious meaning; he also reports a suggestion that the Nephilim are the Mesopotamian apkallu and says that, if so, the passage is polemic rather than history. Silouan Thompson reports John ChrysostomJohn ChrysostomBishop of Constantinople from 398 (about 347–407), called “golden-mouthed” for his eloquence. The Catholic Encyclopedia calls him the chief representative of Antioch’s grammatical-historical interpretation, which opposed Origen’s allegorical reading.From: Baur; Baur; Baur; BaurAll terms →'s Sethite reading, angels being bodiless and unable to marry.^{65 66 67}

Catholic · An old legend; unusually tall humans

The New American Bible note says the passage apparently alludes to an old legend of a heaven populated by many beings, some rebellious, and accounts for prehistoric giants. Jimmy Akin follows Heiser's derivation of the name but concludes the Nephilim were unusually tall humans, leaving the sons' identity aside.^{68 69 8}

Protestant: Lutheran · Marriage, and human fathers

Keil argues that taking a wife always means marriage and that Christ's saying about angels excludes angels here. He places the Nephilim before the marriages and reports Luther's rendering 'tyrants'.^{70 43 44}

Protestant: Reformed · Seth's line, adopted as God's sons

Calvin calls angels having intercourse with women an 'ancient figment' refuted by its own absurdity and reads Seth's descendants, God's sons by adoption. Iain Duguid concludes for the Sethites while granting that each view has strengths. Tony Arsenal argues that the angel view breaks the narrative flow and contradicts Jesus' teaching.^{4 sources}4 sources71. Calvin 1847 72. Calvin 1847 73. Duguid 2025 74. Arsenal 2025

Protestant: evangelical · Evangelical scholars divide

Michael Heiser holds the divine-beings reading and calls the Nephilim hybridized beings. Robin Routledge tentatively concludes that the Nephilim were probably the offspring of divine beings and human women. Reinaldo Siqueira, a Seventh-day Adventist scholar, argues from Genesis 4-6 for Sethite men and Cainite women.^{75 42 76}

Jehovah's Witnesses · Materialized angels

Insight on the Scriptures holds that the sons of God must have been angels who materialized in human form and fathered hybrid children, citing 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter. It holds that the Nephilim died in the flood.^{77 78}

Latter-day Saints · Noah's obedient family

Moses 8 calls Noah and his sons who hearkened to the Lord the sons of God; the sons of men, who take the faithful men's daughters as wives, later claim the title falsely. It adds a condition of repentance to the 120 years and has giants seeking Noah's life.^{79 80}

Islamic · Harut and Marut, a parallel only

The Qur'an does not tell this story. In 2:102 it speaks of two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut, through whom people learned magic. Ibn KathirIbn KathirAn Arab historian and scholar who taught at Damascus (1301–1373), according to the first Encyclopaedia of Islam. He wrote a universal history and a commentary on the Qur’an.From: Islam; Islam; IslamAll terms → reports that many early Muslims held them to be angels who came down to earth, while al-Tabari took them as men, a reading Ibn Kathir calls not plausible.^{81 82}

Academic (critical) · Heavenly beings and a surviving fragment

Skinner calls the passage an obscure, fragmentary aetiological myth of supernatural beings marrying mortal women, explaining where the giants came from. Driver calls it unassimilated mythology, and Gunkel the torso of a fuller angel-marriage legend. Doedens judges heavenly beings, not otherwise specified, may be more plausible than judges or Sethites, and Drummond argues the first audience would have heard members of the divine assembly.^{8 sources}8 sources83. Skinner 1910 28. Skinner 1910 6. Driver 1904 29. Driver 1904 84. Carruth) 1901 85. Carruth) 1901 4. Doedens 2013 15. Drummond

Skeptic/secular · Divine sons read literally

Robert Ingersoll read the passage as Moses picturing God living on the firmament among his sons, whose marriages with women produced giants. Jason Colavito places it among early Near Eastern myths, while calling his own reconstruction mostly speculation.^{86 87 88}

Common misunderstandings

Text

Things people commonly believe the text says, checked against it.

A common belief among believers
Myth Genesis describes the Nephilim as enormous.
Actually Genesis gives them no height. The three-thousand-ell giants come from 1 Enoch.^{7 8 2}
A common belief among believers
Myth Genesis says the angel marriages caused the flood.
Actually The next verses give human wickedness as the reason, and Driver notes that a link with the unions is not stated. Later Jewish texts make the giants the reason.^{3 6}
A common belief among believers
Myth Every Jewish and Christian interpreter before Augustine read angels.
Actually Heiser says so, but Julius Africanus preferred Seth's descendants, and Genesis Rabbah records Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai insisting on 'children of judges'.^{33 34 35}

Show 4 more misconceptions

A common belief among believers
Myth A photo of a giant human skeleton being excavated confirms the Nephilim.
Actually That image was made in 2002 for a Worth1000 photo contest from a picture of a mastodon dig, and its creator did not intend a religious claim. Snopes' fact check of a similar giant-skull image notes that the square-cube law makes humanoids of the size those skulls represent a physical impossibility.^{5 sources}5 sources89. Owen 2007 90. Owen 2007 91. Boese 2004 7. Mikkelson 8. Akin 2025
A common belief among skeptics
Myth Reading the sons of God as heavenly beings is modern fringe speculation.
Actually It appears to be the oldest reading, found in Josephus, and Skinner, Driver, Doedens and the evangelical Routledge take heavenly beings in some form.^{8 sources}8 sources31. Doedens 2013 45. Whiston)92. Skinner 1910 93. Skinner 1910 6. Driver 1904 29. Driver 1904 4. Doedens 2013 42. Routledge 2015
A common belief among skeptics
Myth Augustine rejected the angel reading because spirits cannot have intercourse.
Actually Augustine left that undecided. He rejected the idea that God's holy angels fell in this way.⁶⁴
A common belief among skeptics
Myth The word Nephilim shows they were extraterrestrials.
Actually The ancient-astronaut claim rests on Zecharia Sitchin's readings. Heiser calls his 'people of the fiery rockets' contrived, and Akin also rejects it.^{94 95}

Words worth a closer look

Text

Where the wording in different Bibles diverges, and why.

Genesis 6:2 · “sons of God” bene ha'elohim

In the Masoretic Hebrew the expression occurs elsewhere only in Job, of beings who present themselves before the LORD (1:6; 2:1) and shout for joy at the earth's founding (38:7); at Deuteronomy 32:8 the BSB follows the Dead Sea Scrolls in reading it. Julius Africanus found 'the angels of heaven' in his copies of Genesis, and Brenton notes that Codex Alexandrinus reads 'angels of God'. Related divine-sonship language is used of Israel in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Hosea 1:10, though not this expression.^{9 sources}9 sources9. Job 1:6 10. Job 2:1 11. Job 38:7 16. this site's data 17. Deuteronomy 32:8 34. Africanus 96. this site's data 97. Genesis 6:2 73. Duguid 2025

Open in compare →

Genesis 6:4 · Numbers 13:33 · “Nephilim”

The noun occurs only in these two verses; one of its two occurrences in Numbers is spelled with an extra yod. Driver calls its etymology and meaning unknown. Drummond glosses it 'the fallen ones'; Keil derives it from naphal, 'to fall upon', and reports Luther's 'tyrants'; Heiser rejects 'fallen ones' and proposes an Aramaic noun meaning 'giant'; Insight on the Scriptures glosses 'Fellers'. Ezekiel 32:27's 'fallen mighty' uses a participle of naphal, not this noun.^{12 sources}12 sources98. this site's data 99. this site's data 100. this site's data 101. Driver 1904 15. Drummond 43. Keil 1864 44. Keil 1864 75. Heiser 77. Bible 78. Bible 102. this site's data 103. this site's data

Open in compare →

Genesis 6:4 · “giants” gigantes (Greek)

The KJV's 'giants' follows the Septuagint, which Brenton renders 'giants'; Targum Onkelos, in the Metsudah translation, also has 'giants'. Goff reads the Greek choice of gigantes, the rebellious giants of Greek myth, as showing that the translators understood the angels' children very negatively. Routledge says that in their biblical portrayal these 'demigods' are not seen as essentially negative.^{5 sources}5 sources2. Genesis 6:4 50. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)51. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)104. Goff 2021 42. Routledge 2015

Open in compare →

Show 2 more translation notes (“remain / contend / strive”, “sons of Anak”)

Genesis 6:3 · “remain / contend / strive” yadon

BSB has contend, KJV strive and JPS 1917 abide. The tagged Hebrew files the verb under din, 'judge', while its gloss gives 'will remain'. Skinner says 'abide' is perhaps only a plausible guess and the derivation from din doubtful; Driver says the verse is very uncertain both textually and exegetically.^{5 sources}5 sources40. Genesis 6:3 105. this site's data 106. this site's data 107. Skinner 1910 108. Driver 1904

Compare the versions

BSBSo the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.”

KJVAnd the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Genesis 6:3

BSBSo the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days shall be 120 years.”

KJVAnd the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

JPSAnd the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

Open in compare →

Numbers 13:33 · “sons of Anak”

BSB, JPS 1917 and KJV include the phrase linking the sons of Anak to the Nephilim; Brenton's Septuagint lacks it. Routledge notes that some consider the phrase editorial.^{109 110 111}

Compare the versions

BSBWe even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim! We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”

KJVAnd there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Numbers 13:33

BSBWe even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim! We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”

JPSAnd there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'

KJVAnd there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Open in compare →

History and evidence

Evidence

Each historical claim judged on its own, never a verdict on the whole story.

Open
The sons of God in Genesis 6 are heavenly beings.
Job uses the same expression for beings before the LORD.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: high
Job uses the same expression for beings before the LORD. Skinner argues the daughters of men in 6:2 cannot be narrower than in 6:1, so the sons cannot be a section of humanity. Duguid grants that the Old Testament nowhere else calls humans 'sons of God' but reads Seth's line; Siqueira argues from Genesis 4-6 for Sethite men and Cainite women.^{7 sources}7 sources9. Job 1:6 10. Job 2:1 11. Job 38:7 92. Skinner 1910 93. Skinner 1910 73. Duguid 2025 76. Siqueira 2005
Contested · Skinner and Driver hold that the human readings cannot stand, and Doedens tentatively favours unspecified heavenly beings; Siqueira and Duguid argue for Seth's descendants, and Targum Onkelos renders rulers' sons. (as of 2026-11-09)
Supported
Texts outside the Bible use 'sons of El' for members of a divine assembly.
Ugaritic texts call El's seventy sons the 'sons of El'.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: high
Ugaritic texts call El's seventy sons the 'sons of El'. This shows the phrase could mean divine beings in Israel's world; it does not settle what Genesis 6 means or show that any event happened.^{14 15}
Cross-community agreement · Heiser and Drummond both cite the Ugaritic 'sons of El' as divine beings; the cited claims record no dispute about the usage. (as of 2026-11-09)
Open
The Nephilim were the children of these unions.
Genesis 6:4 mentions the Nephilim, the unions and the children born of them without saying in so many words that the Nephilim were those children.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: high
Genesis 6:4 mentions the Nephilim, the unions and the children born of them without saying in so many words that the Nephilim were those children.²
Contested · Routledge, who says a majority of commentators take this view (his own characterization, not a survey), probably identifies the Nephilim as the offspring; Keil places them before the marriages. (as of 2026-11-09)
No outside evidence · silence partly expected
Heavenly beings physically fathered children with human women.
The checked sources record interpretations of Genesis and Augustine's admitted uncertainty, not independent confirmation of such offspring.
Why this verdict
What the text narrates
Confidence: high
The checked sources record interpretations of Genesis and Augustine's admitted uncertainty, not independent confirmation of such offspring. That absence does not show such parentage impossible.^{112 64}
What would change this verdict: Independent evidence bearing on the claimed offspring and their parentage.
No outside evidence · silence partly expected
Ancient reports of giant bones confirm a race of giants.
Josephus claims giant bones were displayed, and Augustine describes bones and a huge tooth.
Why this verdict
Claims others made
Confidence: high
Josephus claims giant bones were displayed, and Augustine describes bones and a huge tooth. These assertions lack independent authentication in the checked sources. Genesis gives the Nephilim no height; the three-thousand-ell beings are 1 Enoch's.^{7 8 2}
What would change this verdict: Authenticated remains with reliable measurements and provenance.
Open
Genesis 6:3 sets a maximum human lifespan of 120 years.
After 6:3 Genesis still gives lives above 120 years: Shem lives 500 years after fathering Arphaxad at 100, and Abraham dies at 175.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: high
After 6:3 Genesis still gives lives above 120 years: Shem lives 500 years after fathering Arphaxad at 100, and Abraham dies at 175. Ibn Ezra and Augustine take that as ruling out a lifespan limit; Skinner assigns those ages to a different source that decides nothing about this verse. Driver calls the verse very uncertain.^{6 sources}6 sources113. Genesis 11:10–11 114. Genesis 25:7 115. Ezra 116. Augustine 117. Skinner 1910 108. Driver 1904
Contested · Josephus, Doedens and Skinner read a lifespan, and Driver tentatively prefers it; Targum Onkelos, Ibn Ezra, Augustine and Calvin read time before the flood. (as of 2026-11-09)
Open
Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to the sons of God of Genesis 6.
Jude speaks of angels who left their proper dwelling, then of Sodom and Gomorrah indulging in sexual immorality 'in like manner'; 2 Peter sets the sinning angels beside the flood.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: medium
Jude speaks of angels who left their proper dwelling, then of Sodom and Gomorrah indulging in sexual immorality 'in like manner'; 2 Peter sets the sinning angels beside the flood. Neither names the sons of God or their wives.^{4 sources}4 sources118. Jude 1:6–7 119. 2 Peter 2:4–5 120. this site's data 121. Keil 1864
Contested · Doedens says New Testament allusions understood the passage of fallen angels, and Insight cites these letters; Keil denies that they speak of marriages or children. (as of 2026-11-09)
Open
Genesis 6:1-4 is the fragment of a fuller, older story.
Driver calls the passage a 'torso' whose original position and full intention cannot now be recovered, and Gunkel thinks later tradition cut what it found objectionable.
Why this verdict
Claims about the text
Confidence: medium
Driver calls the passage a 'torso' whose original position and full intention cannot now be recovered, and Gunkel thinks later tradition cut what it found objectionable. 'Fragment' is a literary judgment that evidence has not settled.^{4 sources}4 sources6. Driver 1904 84. Carruth) 1901 85. Carruth) 1901 5. Skinner 1910
Contested · Skinner and Driver assign the passage to J and treat it as a fragment, and Gunkel calls it the torso of a fuller legend. Later work questions whether J was a continuous early source, and traditional readers who hold Mosaic authorship reject the source division. (as of 2026-11-09)

Hard questions

The strongest case, the strongest responses, then a plain assessment of where the logic holds.

Did angels have children with human women?

Genesis says 'sons of God', not angels; the angel reading appears oldest and has scholarly defenders, the Seth and rulers readings are defended too, and no checked evidence independently confirms the unions.

See the argument

The strongest case

Doedens finds that the angel reading appears to be the earliest known. Josephus writes that many angels of God lay with women and fathered sons; Justin Martyr that angels set over humanity were captivated by women and fathered children called demons. Skinner argues that the daughters of men in 6:2 cannot be narrower than in 6:1, so the sons cannot be a section of humanity, and Driver that the expression can legitimately mean only semi-divine or angelic beings. Today Heiser holds the divine-beings reading, Routledge thinks the Nephilim probably the offspring of divine beings and women, Doedens judges heavenly beings 'may be more plausible', Insight on the Scriptures teaches materialized angels, and the Orthodox writer Farley calls angels marrying women the obvious meaning of the text.^{24 sources}24 sources1. Genesis 6:1–2 9. Job 1:6 10. Job 2:1 11. Job 38:7 31. Doedens 2013 45. Whiston)63. Martyr 92. Skinner 1910 93. Skinner 1910 6. Driver 1904 29. Driver 1904 75. Heiser 42. Routledge 2015 4. Doedens 2013 77. Bible 78. Bible 65. Farley 73. Duguid 2025 76. Siqueira 2005 70. Keil 1864 46. (ed.) 1913 47. (ed.) 1913 64. Augustine 112. Genesis 6:2–4

P1. Genesis says the sons of God took human wives who bore them children, and Job uses that expression for beings before the LORD. 1 Enoch 6-7 and Jubilees 5 retell the story with angels who take wives, and in 1 Enoch they father giants.^{11 sources}11 sources1. Genesis 6:1–2 2. Genesis 6:4 9. Job 1:6 10. Job 2:1 11. Job 38:7 19. 1 Enoch 6:2 20. 1 Enoch 6:6 21. 1 Enoch 7:1–2 22. 1 Enoch 7:4 24. Jubilees 5:1 25. Jubilees 5:6No listed response challenges this premise
P2. So the sons of God are heavenly beings, and the passage tells of their real unions with women.

→ Conclusion. Genesis 6 says angels, or other heavenly beings, fathered children with human women.

Strongest responses

Early church: Greek challenges P2

Seth's righteous line. Julius Africanus, although his copies read 'the angels of heaven', holds that Seth's descendants are called sons of God for the righteous men and patriarchs who sprang from him. Doedens dates the earliest Sethite reading to him.^{34 31 32}

Early church: Latin challenges P2

Holy angels did not fall so. Augustine says he cannot believe God's holy angels fell in this way and reads Seth's descendants who forsook righteousness. He leaves undecided whether spirits could have bodily intercourse with women, and argues that giants need no angelic fathers.⁶⁴

Orthodox challenges P2

Angels are bodiless. The Orthodox writer Silouan Thompson reports that John Chrysostom reads Seth's descendants, since angels are bodiless and cannot marry.⁶⁷

Protestant: Lutheran challenges P2

Jesus' saying excludes it. Keil argues that taking a wife always means marriage, and that Christ's statement is enough to exclude angels; Jesus says the risen do not marry but are like the angels in heaven, and 'cannot' is Keil's inference. Keil reports J. H. Kurtz's reply, that Christ's words do not prove angels cannot fall from holiness into an unnatural state, and rejects it, demanding evidence that angels have or can acquire a body capable of marriage.^{4 sources}4 sources70. Keil 1864 122. Matthew 22:30 123. Mark 12:25 124. Luke 20:35–36

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

A human line, adopted by God. Calvin calls angelic intercourse with women an 'ancient figment' refuted by its own absurdity and reads Seth's descendants as God's sons by adoption. Duguid concludes for the Sethites: the angel view's main challenge, citing Matthew 22:30, is whether angels can produce offspring with humans, though ancient audiences did not find it as absurd as Calvin did; he grants that his own view's greatest challenge is that the Old Testament nowhere else calls humans 'sons of God'. Arsenal argues the angel view breaks the narrative flow and contradicts Jesus' teaching.^{4 sources}4 sources71. Calvin 1847 72. Calvin 1847 73. Duguid 2025 74. Arsenal 2025

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

Read Genesis 4-6 together. Siqueira, reading the final text closely, finds support in Genesis 4-6 for the sons of God as Sethite men and the daughters of man as Cainite women.⁷⁶

Jewish: rabbinic challenges P2

Sons of rulers and judges. Targum Onkelos, in the Metsudah translation, renders 'the sons of the rulers'. In Genesis Rabbah, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai renders 'children of judges' and curses anyone who calls them 'children of God'.^{50 51 35}

Jewish: medieval commentator challenges P2

Elohim can mean authority. Rashi explains the sons of God first as sons of princes and rulers, citing elohim as authority in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1, though he gives princely angels as a second explanation. Ibn Ezra prefers men who knew the will of the Most High.^{56 58}

Plain assessment

Genesis says 'sons of God', not 'angels'. The angel reading appears to be the oldest and has the usage in Job on its side; Duguid grants that the Sethite view's greatest challenge is that the Old Testament nowhere else calls humans 'sons of God', though related language is used of Israel in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Hosea 1:10. Siqueira argues from the context of Genesis 4-6, and Keil from Jesus' saying about angels, where 'cannot' is Keil's inference. Kurtz answers with a fall into an unnatural state, Insight with angels taking human form, and the Testament of Reuben has the Watchers take the shape of men. Augustine left the physical question undecided, and no checked evidence independently confirms such offspring.

What would change this assessment: An attestation of a human reading earlier than Africanus or Shimon bar Yochai; on the unions themselves, independent evidence bearing on the claimed offspring.

Assessment uses: Gen.6.1-Gen.6.2 · Gen.6.4 · sons of God · The Watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees · How the readings shifted · Jewish: Second Temple · The sons of God in Genesis 6 are heavenly beings. · Heavenly beings physically fathered children with human women. · Early church: Greek · Early church: Latin · Orthodox · Protestant: Lutheran · Protestant: Reformed · Protestant: evangelical · Jewish: rabbinic · Jewish: medieval commentator · Jehovah's Witnesses

Do Jude and 2 Peter refer to this story?

As Keil stresses, the letters mention no marriages or children; Doedens and Pearson read them as drawing on the Enochic fallen-angel story, Keil as speaking of sinning angels in general.

See the argument

The strongest case

Doedens says the New Testament allusions to Genesis 6 understood it of fallen angels. Jude speaks of angels who left their proper dwelling and then of Sodom and Gomorrah indulging in sexual immorality 'in like manner', and Jude 14-15 quotes 1 Enoch. 2 Peter sets the angels who sinned, cast into Tartarus, beside the flood; Pearson reports Glasson's finding that 1 Enoch's fallen-angel myth was shaped by the Greek Titans in Tartarus. Insight on the Scriptures cites 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter for its angel reading.^{10 sources}10 sources31. Doedens 2013 118. Jude 1:6–7 119. 2 Peter 2:4–5 120. this site's data 125. Pearson 1969 126. Pearson 1969 77. Bible 78. Bible 121. Keil 1864 127. Pierce 2009

P1. Jude 6-7 tells of angels who abandoned their proper dwelling, kept in chains for judgment, and of Sodom and Gomorrah indulging in sexual immorality in like manner. 2 Peter 2:4-5 tells of sinning angels cast into Tartarus and of the flood.^{118 119 120}No listed response challenges this premise
P2. These angels are the sons of God of Genesis 6, and their sin was taking human wives.

→ Conclusion. The New Testament confirms the angel reading of Genesis 6.

Strongest responses

Protestant: Lutheran challenges P2

Sinning angels in general. Keil argues that 2 Peter 2:4 speaks of sinning angels in general and that Jude 6 says nothing about marriages with women or begetting children; he takes Jude's 'in like manner' to refer to the cities.^{121 118}

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

The spirits in prison are disputed too. On the related 1 Peter 3:19, Pierce reports three main readings of the spirits in prison, human souls, the flood generation addressed through Noah (Augustine), and imprisoned angels of the Watchers tradition.¹²⁷

Plain assessment

Jude and 2 Peter speak of sinning angels and set them beside Sodom or the flood, and Jude quotes 1 Enoch. Keil notes that Jude 6 says nothing about marriages with women or begetting children, and reads 2 Peter 2:4 as sinning angels in general; Doedens and Pearson read the letters as drawing on the Enochic fallen-angel story. Pierce reports three readings of the spirits in prison in 1 Peter.

What would change this assessment: A first-century reading that ties these letters explicitly to Genesis 6.

Assessment uses: Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to the sons of God of Genesis 6. · Jude.1.6-Jude.1.7 · 2Pet.2.4-2Pet.2.5 · 1Pet.3.19-1Pet.3.20 · The Watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees

Were the Nephilim literal giants?

Genesis gives the Nephilim no height and the word's meaning is disputed; 'giants' comes through the ancient versions, the enormous sizes from 1 Enoch, and no checked source authenticates giant remains.

See the argument

The strongest case

The Septuagint renders Nephilim gigantes, the KJV 'giants', and Targum Onkelos 'giants'; in Numbers 13:33 the spies feel like grasshoppers beside them. Heiser derives the name from an Aramaic noun meaning 'giant' and calls the Nephilim hybridized beings. Josephus claims giant bones were displayed, and Augustine describes bones and a huge tooth.^{13 sources}13 sources2. Genesis 6:4 50. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)51. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)104. Goff 2021 110. Numbers 13:33 75. Heiser 7. Mikkelson 8. Akin 2025 101. Driver 1904 43. Keil 1864 44. Keil 1864 61. Steinsaltz 62. Steinsaltz

P1. The Greek, Aramaic and King James versions render Nephilim 'giants', and the spies in Numbers 13:33 feel like grasshoppers beside the Nephilim.^{4 sources}4 sources2. Genesis 6:4 50. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)51. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)110. Numbers 13:33No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The name and the spies' report show that the Nephilim were beings of extraordinary size.

→ Conclusion. Genesis describes a race of physically gigantic beings.

Strongest responses

Catholic challenges P2

Unusually tall humans. Akin accepts Heiser's derivation but concludes the Nephilim were unusually tall humans, noting that the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint and Josephus give Goliath about six feet six inches; that figure assumes an eighteen-inch cubit, and the Masoretic textMasoretic TextThe accepted Hebrew biblical text from the second half of the first millennium CE onward, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority. Many Qumran biblical manuscripts closely resemble it, the Authority says, while some differ in language and spelling.From: Authority; Authority; Authority; AuthorityAll terms → reads six cubits and a span.⁸

Protestant: Lutheran challenges P2

Tyrants, not giants. Keil derives Nephilim from naphal, 'to fall upon', invaders, and reports Luther's view that the word means 'tyrants', not giants.^{43 44}

Jewish: modern challenges P2

Fallen from greatness. Steinsaltz suggests the name may mean they fell from greatness or were 'more wondrous'.^{61 62}

Academic (critical) challenges P2

The word's meaning is unknown. Driver says the etymology and true meaning of Nephilim are unknown. Goff reads the Septuagint's gigantes as the translators' negative interpretive choice, drawn from Greek myth.^{101 104}

Early church: Latin challenges the framing

Height needs no angels. Augustine accepts giants but argues they need no angelic fathers, citing a woman of gigantic size seen at Rome whose parents were of ordinary height.⁶⁴

Plain assessment

Genesis gives the Nephilim no height; the three-thousand-ell giants come from 1 Enoch. 'Giants' entered through the Greek and Aramaic versions, while Driver calls the word's meaning unknown and Keil and Steinsaltz derive it otherwise. The grasshopper comparison is the spies' report. Josephus and Augustine report giant bones, but these assertions lack independent authentication in the checked sources.

What would change this assessment: Authenticated remains with reliable measurements and provenance, or a secure etymology of the word.

Assessment uses: Nephilim · giants · Ancient reports of giant bones confirm a race of giants. · Catholic · Protestant: Lutheran · Jewish: modern · Early church: Latin

How can Nephilim appear after the flood?

The Old Testament gives no survival account; readers answer with the spies' exaggeration, a general name for tall people, a later note, or a rabbinic survivor such as Og.

See the argument

The strongest case

Ibn Ezra takes 'and also afterward' to mean after the flood, citing the sons of Anak of Numbers 13:33 as descended from the family of the sons of God. RambanNachmanidesA Spanish Talmudist, Bible commentator and physician (1194–about 1270), also called Moses ben Nahman or Ramban. The Jewish Encyclopedia calls his Pentateuch commentary his masterpiece.From: Jacobs; Jacobs; Jacobs; JacobsAll terms → objects that this needs either Noah's daughters-in-law to descend from them or survivors such as Og. Yet Genesis 7:23 leaves no survivors but Noah and his companions in the ark.^{11 sources}11 sources128. Ezra 129. Genesis 7:23 110. Numbers 13:33 130. Routledge 2015 42. Routledge 2015 131. Bible 66. Farley 132. Skinner 1910 133. Skinner 1910 101. Driver 1904 55. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 61a (William Davidson translation, Sefaria)

P1. Genesis 7:23 leaves no survivors but Noah and his companions in the ark, and Numbers 13:33 has the spies report Nephilim in Canaan, the sons of Anak.^{129 110}No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The Nephilim in Canaan were descendants of the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

→ Conclusion. Genesis 7:23 and the spies' report cannot both be taken at face value.

Strongest responses

Protestant: evangelical challenges P2

The spies exaggerate. Routledge reads the spies' Nephilim as rhetorical exaggeration, not evidence of their presence. The phrase about the sons of Anak is missing from the Septuagint and some consider it editorial; even if the narrator explains the spies' claim, that need not mean he endorses it.^{42 111}

Jehovah's Witnesses challenges P2

A bad report. Insight on the Scriptures says the Nephilim died in the flood, and that apart from the spies' 'bad report', designed to terrorize, the large men of Canaan are never called Nephilim.^{77 78 131}

Orthodox challenges P2

A general name for the very tall. Farley says the same Nephilim cannot have survived the flood, so 'afterward' uses the term generically for very tall people.⁶⁶

Jewish: rabbinic challenges the conclusion

Og survived. The Talmud traces Og to Shamhazai and records Rabbi Yohanan's view that Og was the one saved from the flood generation. A legend retold by Ginzberg has Og escape by sitting on top of the ark.^{55 134}

Academic (critical) challenges the framing

A later note. Skinner thinks 'and also afterward' is a glossator's note extending the production of Nephilim into later ages, and that the original source knew nothing of a flood. Driver reports a proposal that it began as a marginal note by a reader who remembered Numbers 13:33.^{4 sources}4 sources132. Skinner 1910 133. Skinner 1910 5. Skinner 1910 101. Driver 1904

Plain assessment

Routledge observes that the Old Testament writers give no explanation of survival. Routledge reads the spies' Nephilim as rhetorical exaggeration and Insight as a bad report designed to terrorize; Farley says the same Nephilim cannot have survived; Skinner and Driver treat 'and also afterward' as a later note. RabbinicRabbinicRelating to the rabbis, the Jewish movement of teachers that Sara Ronis describes as emerging after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem’s temple in 70 CE, with teachings and discussions collected in the Talmud.From: RonisAll terms → tradition supplies a survivor, Og.

What would change this assessment: Evidence on the textual history of the Anak phrase or of 'and also afterward'.

Assessment uses: Num.13.33 · sons of Anak · Num.13.33 · Gen.7.23 · Deut.3.11 · Jewish: rabbinic · Orthodox · Jehovah's Witnesses

Are the 120 years a lifespan limit or time before the flood?

Lifespan and countdown both have named defenders, and each answers the other's difficulty differently; Driver judges the verse too uncertain for a confident meaning.

See the argument

The strongest case

Josephus reads God cutting human life short to 120 years. Doedens argues for a limit on lifespan, not a respite before the flood, and Skinner calls the maximum term of life the only natural reference. A countdown also meets a chronological problem, since Noah is 500 when he fathers his sons and 600 at the flood.^{13 sources}13 sources135. Whiston)4. Doedens 2013 117. Skinner 1910 108. Driver 1904 41. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)115. Ezra 116. Augustine 136. Calvin 1847 137. Rashi 113. Genesis 11:10–11 114. Genesis 25:7 138. Genesis 5:32 139. Genesis 7:6

P1. Genesis 6:3 says humankind's days will be 120 years; Genesis 5:32 and 7:6 make Noah 500 when he fathers his sons and 600 when the flood comes.^{40 138 139}No listed response challenges this premise
P2. The number is therefore a maximum lifespan, not a countdown to the flood.

→ Conclusion. Genesis 6:3 limits human life to 120 years.

Strongest responses

Jewish: medieval commentator challenges P2

Shem lived six hundred years. Ibn Ezra rejects the lifespan reading because Shem lived six hundred years, and follows Onkelos in reading time given to repent, comparing Jonah's forty days.¹¹⁵

Early church: Latin challenges P2

Time left before the deluge. Augustine denies that the 120 years limit human life, since people lived over 500 years after the flood, and reads them as the time left before the deluge, dating the saying to Noah's 480th year.¹¹⁶

Jewish: medieval commentator challenges P2

The decree came first. Rashi reads the 120 years as the time God would be long-suffering before bringing the flood if they did not repent. He dates the decree twenty years before Noah's children were born, citing Seder Olam: the TorahTorahHebrew for “instruction, teaching”; Christophe Nihan and Julia Rhyder describe it as the main ancient Israelite name for the Genesis–Deuteronomy collection.From: Nihan; JacobsAll terms → is not always in chronological order.¹³⁷

Protestant: Reformed challenges P2

An approximate age. Calvin reads a time of repentance for the whole world, says Lactantius and others blundered in taking a limit on life, and treats Noah's 'five hundred' as approximate.^{136 138 139}

Plain assessment

Lifespan has Josephus, Doedens and Skinner, and Driver's tentative preference; the countdown has the Targums, Ibn Ezra, Augustine and Calvin. Genesis later gives lives far above 120 years, which Skinner assigns to a different source. The countdown's chronological gap is met by Rashi's earlier decree and Calvin's round number. Driver calls the verse very uncertain.

What would change this assessment: Clearer evidence on the obscure verb yadon or on how the verse relates to the later age notices.

Assessment uses: Genesis 6:3 sets a maximum human lifespan of 120 years. · Gen.6.3 · remain / contend / strive · Gen.5.32 · Gen.11.10-Gen.11.11 · Jewish: medieval commentator · Early church: Latin

Check yourself

What height does Genesis give the Nephilim?

None; the three-thousand-ell giants come from 1 Enoch.^{7 8 2}

Genesis 6:4

In the tagged Hebrew text (STEPBible TAHOT), where else does the noun Nephilim occur?

Only in Numbers 13:33 besides Genesis 6:4, in the spies' report about Canaan.^{98 110}

Numbers 13:33

Who is the earliest known writer to read the sons of God as Seth's descendants?

Julius Africanus, in the first half of the third century, according to Doedens.^{31 32 34}

Genesis 6:2

What are the two main readings of the 120 years?

A limit on human lifespan (Josephus, Doedens) or a period to repent before the flood (Targum Onkelos, Ibn Ezra).^{4 sources}4 sources135. Whiston)4. Doedens 2013 41. Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)115. Ezra

Genesis 6:3

For reflection

What kind of evidence could tell you what 'sons of God' meant to the first readers, and what kind could tell you whether such unions happened?^{4 sources}4 sources14. Heiser 2001 15. Drummond 112. Genesis 6:2–4 64. Augustine

Does Jesus' saying that the risen are like the angels in heaven settle what fallen angels could do? Why or why not?^{4 sources}4 sources122. Matthew 22:30 123. Mark 12:25 124. Luke 20:35–36 70. Keil 1864

Keep going

Noah and the Flood

The LORD's resolve to wipe out humankind for its wickedness follows directly after these verses.³

Genesis 6:5–7

Cain and Abel

Siqueira reads the sons of God as Sethite men and the daughters of man as Cainite women, from Genesis 4-6.⁷⁶

Genesis 4:1–26

Cite this page

Plain citation

The sons of God and the Nephilim. Know the Text. Seek lens, version 1, revised 2026-11-09, Fact-checked. https://knowthetext.com/seek/stories/sons-of-god-and-nephilim/

Chicago-style note

Know the Text, “The sons of God and the Nephilim,” Seek lens, version 1, revised 2026-11-09, Fact-checked, https://knowthetext.com/seek/stories/sons-of-god-and-nephilim/.

BibTeX

@misc{knowthetext-sons-of-god-and-nephilim,
  author = {{Know the Text}},
  title = {The sons of God and the Nephilim},
  howpublished = {Know the Text, Seek lens},
  url = {https://knowthetext.com/seek/stories/sons-of-god-and-nephilim/},
  year = {2026},
  note = {Version 1; revised 2026-11-09; Fact-checked}
}

Sources

139 sources from 93 works

1
Genesis 6:1–2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
2
Genesis 6:4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g ↩^h ↩ⁱ ↩^j ↩^k
3
Genesis 6:5–7↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
J. J. T. Doedens, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (PhD dissertation, Theological University Kampen), Summary (2013)
- 4
  Summary, p. 371↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g ↩^h ↩ⁱ
- 31
  Summary, p. 372↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
- 32
  Summary, p. 373↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Project Gutenberg edition) (1910)
- 5
  on 6:1-4, p. 141↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 28
  on 6:1-4, p. 140↩^a ↩^b
- 83
  on 6:1-4, p. 139↩
- 92
  on 6:1-2, p. 141↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 93
  on 6:2, p. 141↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 107
  on 6:3, p. 145↩
- 117
  on 6:3, p. 146↩^a ↩^b
- 132
  on 6:4, p. 146↩^a ↩^b
- 133
  on 6:4, p. 147↩^a ↩^b
S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, with Introduction and Notes (Westminster Commentaries) (1904)
- 6
  on 6:1-4, p. 82↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
- 29
  on 6:1-4, p. 83↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 101
  on 6:4, p. 84↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 108
  on 6:3, p. 84↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
7
David Mikkelson, “Land of the Giants (Snopes fact check)”, conclusion↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
Jimmy Akin, “Are the Nephilim Biblical Aliens? (Catholic Answers Magazine online)” (2025)
- 8
  final section↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g ↩^h
- 95
  paragraph 6↩
9
Job 1:6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
10
Job 2:1↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
11
Job 38:7↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
12
Psalms 82:1↩
13
Psalms 82:6–7↩
14
Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God, Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (author copy, thedivinecouncil.com)” (2001), p. 2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
15
John Drummond, “The Nephilim and the Sons of God (Bible History Daily, Biblical Archaeology Society)”, paragraph 3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
16
Checked in this site's verse database: BSB footnote on Deuteronomy 32:8↩^a ↩^b
How this was derived
SELECT n.body FROM verse_notes n JOIN verses v ON v.id = n.verse_id WHERE v.work_id = 'bsb' AND v.std_ref = 'Deut.32.8' AND n.kind = 'footnote'
17
Deuteronomy 32:8↩^a ↩^b
Matthew Goff, “When Monsters Walked the Earth: Giants, Monster Theory, and the Reformulation of Textual Traditions in the Enochic Book of the Watchers, Journal of Gods and Monsters” (2021)
- 18
  p. 40↩
- 27
  p. 63↩
- 104
  p. 64↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
19
1 Enoch 6:2↩^a ↩^b
20
1 Enoch 6:6↩^a ↩^b
21
1 Enoch 7:1–2↩^a ↩^b
22
1 Enoch 7:4↩^a ↩^b
23
1 Enoch 15:6–7↩
24
Jubilees 5:1↩^a ↩^b
25
Jubilees 5:6↩^a ↩^b
26
Hesiod (tr. H. G. Evelyn-White, 1914), Works and Days, in Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Project Gutenberg), Works and Days 156-169↩
30
David P. Melvin, “Divine Mediation and the Rise of Civilization in Mesopotamian Literature and in Genesis 1-11, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10” (2010), pp. 3-4↩
Michael S. Heiser, “The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy (paper; copy hosted at godawa.com)”
- 33
  Point 1, list item e↩^a ↩^b
- 75
  Point 1↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 94
  Point 2↩
34
Julius Africanus, Chronography, fragments (ANF vol. 6, New Advent), Chronography fragment 2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
35
Bereshit Rabbah 26 (Sefaria English translation), 26:5↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
36
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:7↩
37
Wisdom of Solomon 14:6↩
38
Baruch 3:26–28↩
39
3 Maccabees 2:4↩
40
Genesis 6:3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Targum Onkelos, Genesis 6 (Metsudah Chumash translation, Sefaria)
- 41
  Gen 6:3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 50
  Gen 6:2↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 51
  Gen 6:4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
Robin Routledge, “The Nephilim: A Tall Story? Who Were the Nephilim and How Did They Survive the Flood?, Tyndale Bulletin 66.1” (2015)
- 42
  p. 40↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
- 111
  p. 25↩^a ↩^b
- 130
  summary, p. 19↩
C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1: The Pentateuch (tr. James Martin, Clark) (1864)
- 43
  on Gen 6:4, p. 137↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 44
  on Gen 6:4, p. 137 n.↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 70
  on Gen 6:1-2, p. 131↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 121
  on Gen 6:1-2, p. 132 n.↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Flavius Josephus (tr. William Whiston), The Antiquities of the Jews (Project Gutenberg)
- 45
  1.3.1 (1.73)↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 135
  1.3.2 (1.75)↩^a ↩^b
R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford) (1913)
- 46
  Testament of Reuben 5:6-7 (Charles translation)↩^a ↩^b
- 47
  Testament of Reuben 5:7↩^a ↩^b
Philo of Alexandria (tr. C. D. Yonge, 1854), On the Giants (earlychristianwritings.com)
- 48
  On the Giants 6↩
- 49
  On the Giants 7↩
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis, tr. J. W. Etheridge (1862), Sefaria
- 52
  Gen 6:2↩^a ↩^b
- 53
  Gen 6:4↩^a ↩^b
54
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 22, tr. Gerald Friedlander (Sefaria), ch. 22↩
55
Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 61a (William Davidson translation, Sefaria), 61a↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Rashi, Rashi on Genesis 6, tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann (Sefaria)
- 56
  on Gen 6:2↩^a ↩^b
- 137
  on Gen 6:3↩^a ↩^b
57
Rashi, Rashi on Numbers 13:33, tr. Rosenbaum and Silbermann (Sefaria), on Num 13:33↩
Abraham ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 6, tr. H. N. Strickman and A. M. Silver (Sefaria)
- 58
  on Gen 6:2↩^a ↩^b
- 115
  on Gen 6:3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
- 128
  on Gen 6:4↩
59
Nachmanides (Ramban), Ramban on Genesis 6, tr. Charles B. Chavel (Sefaria), on Gen 6:4↩
Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, “The Steinsaltz Tanakh, Genesis 6 (Sefaria)”
- 60
  Gen 6:2↩
- 61
  Gen 6:3↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
- 62
  Gen 6:4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
63
Justin Martyr, Second Apology (ANF vol. 1, New Advent), Second Apology 5↩^a ↩^b
Augustine, The City of God, book 15 (NPNF1 vol. 2, tr. Marcus Dods, New Advent)
- 64
  15.23↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f ↩^g
- 116
  15.24↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
Lawrence Farley, “Of Giants and Grasshoppers (Orthodox Church in America, reflections)”
- 65
  paragraph 4↩^a ↩^b
- 66
  paragraph 6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
67
Silouan Thompson, “Who are these Nephilim and Sons of God? (silouanthompson.net)” (2026), paragraph 2↩^a ↩^b
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011), Genesis 6 with notes (bible.usccb.org)” (2011)
- 68
  note on 6:1-4↩
- 69
  note on 6:2↩
John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1, tr. John King (1847)
- 71
  on Gen 6:2, pp. 238-239↩^a ↩^b
- 72
  on Gen 6:2, p. 238↩^a ↩^b
- 136
  on Gen 6:3↩^a ↩^b
73
Iain M. Duguid, “Who Were the Nephilim and the Sons of God and Daughters of Man? (Genesis 6) (Crossway, Tough Passages series)” (2025), section on three views↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
74
Tony Arsenal, “Excursus: Angels or Men? A Defense of the Sethite View of Genesis 6 (The Aquila Report)” (2025), introduction↩^a ↩^b
76
Reinaldo W. Siqueira, “The "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4, Kerygma 1.2” (2005), abstract↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, “Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, "Nephilim" (wol.jw.org)”
- 77
  Who were the sons of God↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 78
  Increased Wickedness↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e
- 131
  A Report Intended to Terrorize↩^a ↩^b
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Pearl of Great Price, Moses 8 (churchofjesuschrist.org)”
- 79
  Moses 8:13↩
- 80
  Moses 8:21↩
81
Qur'an 2:102, Sahih International translation (quran.com API), 2:102↩
82
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged English) on Qur'an 2:102 (quran.com API), on 2:102↩
Hermann Gunkel (tr. W. H. Carruth), The Legends of Genesis (1901)
- 84
  p. 15↩^a ↩^b
- 85
  p. 103↩^a ↩^b
86
Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses (1879), p. 64↩
Jason Colavito, “Who Were the Nephilim? (blog, jasoncolavito.com)” (2012)
- 87
  paragraph 6↩
- 88
  paragraph 7↩
James Owen, “"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax (National Geographic News)” (2007)
- 89
  opening↩
- 90
  How the Image Was Made↩
91
Alex Boese, “Giant Skeleton Unearthed (The Museum of Hoaxes)” (2004), post↩
96
Checked in this site's verse database: Brenton footnote on Genesis 6:2↩
How this was derived
SELECT n.body FROM verse_notes n JOIN verses v ON v.id = n.verse_id WHERE v.work_id = 'brenton' AND v.std_ref = 'Gen.6.2' AND n.kind = 'footnote'
97
Genesis 6:2↩
98
Checked in this site's verse database: Verses containing H5303 (TAHOT)↩^a ↩^b
How this was derived
SELECT group_concat(std_ref, ',') FROM (SELECT std_ref, min(id) AS m FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAHOT' AND root_strong = 'H5303' GROUP BY std_ref ORDER BY m)
99
Checked in this site's verse database: H5303 tokens spelled with yod after pe (TAHOT)↩
How this was derived
SELECT group_concat(std_ref, ',') FROM (SELECT DISTINCT std_ref FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAHOT' AND root_strong = 'H5303' AND surface LIKE '%פִילִ%')
100
Checked in this site's verse database: All H5303 tokens (TAHOT)↩
How this was derived
SELECT count(*) FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAHOT' AND root_strong = 'H5303'
102
Checked in this site's verse database: Words 4-5 of Ezekiel 32:27 (TAHOT)↩
How this was derived
SELECT group_concat(root_strong, ',') FROM (SELECT root_strong FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAHOT' AND std_ref = 'Ezek.32.27' AND word_num IN (4, 5) ORDER BY word_num)
103
Checked in this site's verse database: BSB footnote on Ezekiel 32:27↩
How this was derived
SELECT n.body FROM verse_notes n JOIN verses v ON v.id = n.verse_id WHERE v.work_id = 'bsb' AND v.std_ref = 'Ezek.32.27' AND n.kind = 'footnote' AND n.body LIKE 'LXX%'
105
Checked in this site's verse database: Genesis 6:3, word 4 (TAHOT)↩
How this was derived
SELECT root_strong || ' ' || gloss FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAHOT' AND std_ref = 'Gen.6.3' AND word_num = 4
106
Checked in this site's verse database: BDB entry for H1777↩
How this was derived
SELECT substr(a.text, 1, 60) FROM lexicon_links l JOIN lexicon_articles a ON a.lexicon = l.lexicon AND a.id = l.article_id WHERE l.strong = 'H1777' AND a.text LIKE '%judge%' LIMIT 1
109
Checked in this site's verse database: Editions of Num 13:33 mentioning Anak↩
How this was derived
SELECT group_concat(work_id, ',') FROM (SELECT work_id FROM verses WHERE std_ref = 'Num.13.33' AND work_id IN ('brenton', 'kjv', 'jps1917', 'bsb') AND text LIKE '%Anak%' ORDER BY work_id)
110
Numbers 13:33↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d ↩^e ↩^f
112
Genesis 6:2–4↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
113
Genesis 11:10–11↩^a ↩^b
114
Genesis 25:7↩^a ↩^b
118
Jude 1:6–7↩^a ↩^b ↩^c ↩^d
119
2 Peter 2:4–5↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
120
Checked in this site's verse database: Greek verb tartaroo (G5020) in the New Testament (STEPBible TAGNT)↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
How this was derived
SELECT group_concat(DISTINCT std_ref) FROM tokens WHERE corpus = 'TAGNT' AND root_strong LIKE 'G5020%'
122
Matthew 22:30↩^a ↩^b
123
Mark 12:25↩^a ↩^b
124
Luke 20:35–36↩^a ↩^b
Birger A. Pearson, “A Reminiscence of Classical Myth at II Peter 2.4, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 10” (1969)
- 125
  p. 72↩
- 126
  p. 73↩
127
Chad T. Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in Its Tradition-Historical and Literary Context (PhD thesis, Durham University) (2009), Abstract, p. ii↩^a ↩^b
129
Genesis 7:23↩^a ↩^b
134
Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 (1909; Project Gutenberg) (1909), vol. 1, The Flood↩
138
Genesis 5:32↩^a ↩^b ↩^c
139
Genesis 7:6↩^a ↩^b ↩^c

Read with these questions

Read the passage

The story, step by step

Genesis 6:1–2

Genesis 6:3

Genesis 6:4

Genesis 6:5–7

The world of the story

A heavenly assembly Scholarship

The Watchers in 1 Enoch and Jubilees Tradition

Heroes of divine and human parentage Scholarship

How the readings shifted Scholarship

Giants remembered in later Jewish books Text

Where it fits

Where else Scripture speaks of it

How the traditions read it

Jewish: Second Temple · Angels who took women

Jewish: rabbinic · Sons of the great

Jewish: rabbinic · Fallen angels kept alongside

Jewish: medieval commentator · Rulers first, angels as an option

Jewish: modern · An upper class or embodied angels

Early church: Greek · Justin's angels, Africanus's Sethites

Early church: Latin · Seth's descendants abandoning righteousness

Orthodox · Two Orthodox writers disagree

Catholic · An old legend; unusually tall humans

Protestant: Lutheran · Marriage, and human fathers

Protestant: Reformed · Seth's line, adopted as God's sons

Protestant: evangelical · Evangelical scholars divide

Jehovah's Witnesses · Materialized angels

Latter-day Saints · Noah's obedient family

Islamic · Harut and Marut, a parallel only

Academic (critical) · Heavenly beings and a surviving fragment

Skeptic/secular · Divine sons read literally

Common misunderstandings

Words worth a closer look

Genesis 6:2 · “sons of God” bene ha'elohim

Genesis 6:4 · Numbers 13:33 · “Nephilim”

Genesis 6:4 · “giants” gigantes (Greek)

Genesis 6:3 · “remain / contend / strive” yadon

Numbers 13:33 · “sons of Anak”

History and evidence

The sons of God in Genesis 6 are heavenly beings.

Texts outside the Bible use 'sons of El' for members of a divine assembly.

The Nephilim were the children of these unions.

Heavenly beings physically fathered children with human women.

Ancient reports of giant bones confirm a race of giants.

Genesis 6:3 sets a maximum human lifespan of 120 years.

Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to the sons of God of Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:1-4 is the fragment of a fuller, older story.

Hard questions

Did angels have children with human women?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Do Jude and 2 Peter refer to this story?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Were the Nephilim literal giants?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

How can Nephilim appear after the flood?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Are the 120 years a lifespan limit or time before the flood?

The strongest case

Strongest responses

Plain assessment

Check yourself

What height does Genesis give the Nephilim?

In the tagged Hebrew text (STEPBible TAHOT), where else does the noun Nephilim occur?

Who is the earliest known writer to read the sons of God as Seth's descendants?

What are the two main readings of the 120 years?

For reflection

Keep going

Noah and the Flood

Cain and Abel

Plain citation